Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/air-travellers-to-be-hit-by-carbon-charge-on-all-tickets-hz2dnmzfp

 

"Air passengers face having a carbon charge added to the price of tickets automatically under government plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Ministers are considering measures that would require all airlines to introduce carbon offsetting payments at the point of ticket sale.

Payments would be voluntary but could work on an “opt-out” system. Similar measures could also be applied to trains, buses and ferries."

 

The UK government in terrible policy shocker. Fair enough adding a charge to air travel for carbon offsetting (probably be badly designed so it ends up just being pocketed by airlines and doing little to help) but by making it opt-out it's likely to be infrequent fliers paying it and frequent fliers avoiding it. To then compound the misery it then might be extended to trains and buses. Genius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/air-travellers-to-be-hit-by-carbon-charge-on-all-tickets-hz2dnmzfp

 

"Air passengers face having a carbon charge added to the price of tickets automatically under government plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Ministers are considering measures that would require all airlines to introduce carbon offsetting payments at the point of ticket sale.

Payments would be voluntary but could work on an “opt-out” system. Similar measures could also be applied to trains, buses and ferries."

 

The UK government in terrible policy shocker. Fair enough adding a charge to air travel for carbon offsetting (probably be badly designed so it ends up just being pocketed by airlines and doing little to help) but by making it opt-out it's likely to be infrequent fliers paying it and frequent fliers avoiding it. To then compound the misery it then might be extended to trains and buses. Genius. 

As much as I'd like to see action taken to reduce emissions, I've got to agree that this is a half-arsed and badly-designed way of going about it. For one, there has to be a clear money trail from the charging to initiatives that reduce emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://ew.com/tv/2019/06/03/chernobyl-craig-mazin-finale-interview/

 

"I think what we’re struggling with now is something worse. The planet is heating, the climate is changing. We know this. We have not just one scientist or two, but thousands screaming this at us at the top of their lungs. And we have a government full of disinterested, stubborn people who are going to cling to their denial and their nonsense. And that’s where we are. As I said, we are in the control room right now, and there is time, but it’s running out."

 

Yes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

An exhibit of those disinterested, stubborn people above:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49092653

 

Before anyone says so, of course they're welcome to their viewpoint. However if they really wanted to make a stand, rather than simply attacking the messenger they would address the message and either give what they think should be the action going forward, or have the stones to simply admit that they think there is no problem and by extension that they think pretty much the entire climate science community (not just Miss Thunberg) are either incompetent or liars.

 

But then, that would be too hard for such politicians who like a soft target, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grebfromgrebland

Grebfromgrebland

Posted
Posted
I'm a scientist. Under Trump I lost my job for refusing to hide climate crisis facts | Maria Caffrey | Opinion
www.theguardian.com
‘Politics has no place in science. I am an example of the less discussed methods the administration is using to destroy scientific research.’

The Trump administration’s hostility towards climate science is not new. Interior climate staffer Joel Clement’s reassignment and the blocking of intelligence aide Rod Schoonover’sclimate testimony, which forced both federal employees to resign in protest, are just two of the innumerable examples. These attempts to suppress climate science can manifest themselves in many ways. It starts with burying important climate reports and becomes something more insidious like stopping climate scientists from doing their jobs. In February 2019, I lost my job because I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration. And yet my story is no longer unique.

 

This is why on 22 July I filed a whistleblower complaint against the Trump administration. But this is not the only part to my story; I will also speak to Congress on 25 July about my treatment and the need for stronger scientific integrity protections.

I have worked at the National Park Service (NPS) for a total of eight years. I started out as an intern during the Bush administration, where I experienced nothing like this. I returned in 2012 after earning my PhD, when the NPS funded a project I designed to provide future sea level and storm surge estimates for 118 coastal parks under different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. This kind of information is crucial in order for the NPS to adequately protect coastal parks against the future effects of the climate crisis.

I handed in the first draft of my scientific report in the summer of 2016 and, after the standard rigorous scientific peer review process, it was ready for release in early 2017. But once the new administration came into power, publication was repeatedly delayed, with increasingly vague explanations from my supervisors. So for months, I waited. And waited. I was still waiting when I went on maternity leave almost a year later in December 2017.

Senior NPS officials tried repeatedly, often aggressively, to coerce me into deleting references to the human causes of the climate crisis

It was while I was on leave that I received an email from another climate scientist at the NPS who warned me that the senior leadership was ordering changes to my report without my knowledge. They had scrubbed of any mention of the human causes of the climate crisis. This was not normal editorial adjustment. This was climate science denial.

3121.jpg?width=460&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=c7ff078095c7b77622f76746f02c1c79

A months-long battle ensued. Senior NPS officials tried repeatedly, often aggressively, to coerce me into deleting references to the human causes of the climate crisis from the report. They threatened to make the deletions without my approval if I would not agree, to release the report without naming me as the primary author, or not release it all. Each option would have been devastating to my career and for scientific integrity. I stood firm.

And I prevailed. Media inquiries and open records requests about my report eventually led to letters from members of Congress, and the NPS was essentially forced to publish my report as I had written it.

The NPS continued to retaliate against me. I was forced to accept pay cuts and demotions while I continued to lead several other projects. By February of this year, the NPS declined to renew my funding, despite common knowledge that my branch at the time had ample surplus funding.

When I received this news, my immediate supervisors, who wished for me to stay, asked me to apply to be a volunteer so that I could continue my work. My volunteer application was denied without explanation. If there was any question about whether my termination had to do with legitimate budget constraints or with punishing me for not altering my report to suit the Trump administration’s agenda, that answered it.

Politics has no place in science. I am an example of the less discussed methods the administration is using to destroy scientific research. I wasn’t fired and immediately told to leave; instead they sought retribution by discretely using governmental bureaucracy to apply pressure and gradually cut funding. I have been cut off from projects that I created and was working on, including one that would have provided the public with a valuable interactive way to see for themselves how sea level rise will impact our parks. This is why we need to support stronger protections for scientists.

Ultimately it will be the taxpayers who will pay the true price for our apathy towards these violations. It will become progressively costlier to alter our infrastructure to accommodate the incoming tides. And we will watch as our historic structures are swallowed by the sea. As these things are happening, remember that there were probably multiple scientists like me who warned of these dangers but were silenced. The current administration may only last a matter of years, but its actions may potentially impact our planet for centuries.

  • Dr Maria Caffrey is a climate scientist who formerly worked in the National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate. She currently resides in Denver, Colorado

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Just to make leicsmac's day even worse:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/greenland-ice-sheet-just-poured-197-billion-tons-of-water-to-the-ocean-in-july

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/report-trump-officials-are-actively-censoring-what-you-read-about-climate-change

 

I think there is a lot of truth to the article below and one reason that I don't think climate and natural catastrophes are similar to the Alien idea I espoused elsewhere for bringing humanity together:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/hundreds-of-millions-at-risk-of-devastating-climate-apartheid-un-expert-warns

 

Sorry LM.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, FIF said:

Just to make leicsmac's day even worse:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/greenland-ice-sheet-just-poured-197-billion-tons-of-water-to-the-ocean-in-july

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/report-trump-officials-are-actively-censoring-what-you-read-about-climate-change

 

I think there is a lot of truth to the article below and one reason that I don't think climate and natural catastrophes are similar to the Alien idea I espoused elsewhere for bringing humanity together:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/hundreds-of-millions-at-risk-of-devastating-climate-apartheid-un-expert-warns

 

Sorry LM.

 

 

Well, no need to apologise, truth of the matter is that it's at least reasonably likely that you and the bottom article are right about how all of this plays out. I wish it weren't the case, but a lot of human behaviour under stress speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Problem with climate change is there's so much hysteria about it that it's difficult to know what stance to take.

That's because there's a great deal of misinformation being issued - some of it honest mistakes, a lot of it deliberate and designed to obfuscate the issue for exactly the outcome you describe.

 

There is precious little discussion within the climate science community itself as to the nature of the problem and only a little more with respect to how it gets fixed. But there are too many people who don't want things to change whom it will inconvenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

As an addendum to the above, food shortages and water shortages will be the first and most obvious sign of climate change, and they will be felt across vast areas at the same time.

 

What will the OECD countries do with a billion starving and thirsty people all looking for refuge over a very short amount of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And one more:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/07/bolsonaro-amazon-deforestation-exploded-july-data

 

I actually loathe this man more than Trump as his government actually has the realistic potential to do more damage to the Earth than Trump's administration might, and he is an utterly unrepentant cvnt about all of it.

Age old question that never has a real solution, why shouldn't Brazil develop its land given if the rest of the world has been able to do so? If developed nations want it protecting then they need to do more to protect it. Be interesting when EU-Mercosur FTA is published to see what environmental restrictions the EU has tried to enforce but my suspicion is that it will not be a great agreement for the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Age old question that never has a real solution, why shouldn't Brazil develop its land given if the rest of the world has been able to do so? If developed nations want it protecting then they need to do more to protect it. Be interesting when EU-Mercosur FTA is published to see what environmental restrictions the EU has tried to enforce but my suspicion is that it will not be a great agreement for the environment.

...because two environmental wrongs don't make a right and with the way the world is now rather than the way it used to be "developing" the Amazon on the scale that Bolsanaro and his chums want could have truly dire consequences?

 

Freedom of choice to swing your fist stops at the next guys nose. That goes for nations, as well as individuals.

 

Developed nations might perhaps offer a bung to allow it to be protected but quite frankly I don't give a fvck about how it's done so long as its done and this utterly insane course of action from this power-hungry nationalist is stopped ASAP.

 

.......and yes, this has all rather pushed my buttons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

...because two environmental wrongs don't make a right and with the way the world is now rather than the way it used to be "developing" the Amazon on the scale that Bolsanaro and his chums want could have truly dire consequences?

 

Freedom of choice to swing your fist stops at the next guys nose. That goes for nations, as well as individuals.

 

Developed nations might perhaps offer a bung to allow it to be protected but quite frankly I don't give a fvck about how it's done so long as its done and this utterly insane course of action from this power-hungry nationalist is stopped ASAP.

 

.......and yes, this has all rather pushed my buttons.

 

Yeah exactly saying something is bad and being angry about it isn't a solution but it's all we ever get. I just somehow don't think the people of Brazil want to forego their opportunity to become wealthier because people in countries that have done the considerable damage they have done are worried and feel guilty about it.

 

Just another version of the free rider problem. Environmentalists get angry about the destruction of what is essentially a global public good but they don't actually have a solution to overcome the global free-riding thus in this case the public good is removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Yeah exactly saying something is bad and being angry about it isn't a solution but it's all we ever get. I just somehow don't think the people of Brazil want to forego their opportunity to become wealthier because people in countries that have done the considerable damage they have done are worried and feel guilty about it.

 

Just another version of the free rider problem. Environmentalists get angry about the destruction of what is essentially a global public good but they don't actually have a solution to overcome the global free-riding thus in this case the public good is removed. 

I don't disagree, unfortunately - it seems that the free-rider problem is part and parcel of human nature, as we are now, anyway. Personally, I'd be very happy to see some kind of global enforcement agency that has the power and teeth to punish nation states who step over the line, but that raises a lot of concerns of its own and there's no way the nation states would accept any kind of authority that supersedes their own. Honestly though, as said above I would take any kind of solution - whether it's paying the Brazilians to keep it the way it is, sanctioning them to the hilt to get them to stop, whatever.

 

Because, with respect, this a lot more than being "worried" and "feeling guilty" about this particular problem - damaging the Amazon rainforest at the rate it is being done has long-term consequences for Brazil and the rest of the world that are not only possible but probable, and that's not going to stop being the case simply because many of the people pointing it out are being hypocritical about it. The Earth doesn't care about economics or politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...